In his new book, John Frame argues that two-kingdom theologians represent a novel development in the history of Reformed theology. In his introduction, he goes out of his way to explain that Escondido theologians reject Christendom. But this rejection creates a problem for 2k because the theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries taught that the magistrate had a duty to enforce the entire Decalague. “The two kingdoms view,” Frame writes, “goes beyond the Reformation theology in important ways. Indeed, except for the law/gospel dichotomy, its distinctive positions are American, not European.” (Frame also acknowledges that the roots of two kingdom theology are in Augustine’s City of God and Luther’s On Civil Authority. Go figure.) In fact, Frame goes out of his way to locate Meredith Kline as the source of these views.
What is odd about Frame’s analysis is that the so-called Escondido Theology was a position that Edmund P. Clowney espoused. Clowney was not only Frame’s professor at Westminster during the 1960s, but he was also the president of the seminary when Frame received a teaching appointment. Apparently, Frame did not pay attention to Clowney’s teaching or memos. But Clowney clearly taught the main lines of the so-called Escondido Theology in an essay, “The Politics of the Kingdom,” published in the Westminster Theological Journal in the Spring, 1979 issue (helpfully made available by Ken Myers at Mars Hill Audio, a time when the property for Westminster Seminary California was only a twinkle in Clowney’s eye.
First, notice Clowney’s understanding of the cultural mandate and Christ’s fulfillment of it:
Christ the second Adam fulfills the calling of the first. Adam was charged to fill the earth and subdue it. Man’s dominion, lyrically described in Psalm 8, is realized in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, as the author of Hebrews declares (Heb. 2:5-8). Further, in his resurrection glory at the Father’s right hand Christ fills all things. Paul describes Christ’s filling both in reference to the church (his fullness as his body) and in reference to the world, which he fills with the sovereignty of his rule (Eph. 4:10; Jer. 23:23). In Jesus Christ man’s vocation of sonship as God’s imagebearer is completely realized. The final depth of the covenant relation is not “I will be your God, and ye shall be my people,” but “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee” (Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5).
Notice next that for the church to engage in political and social activities is to secularize the church and therefore a betrayal of the church’s duty:
Because there is one true people of God on earth, there remains a “theopolitical” structure and calling for the church. It is not the structure of the kingdoms of the world. To apply to the world the form of the church is a sacralizing process that is just as illegitimate as the secularizing process that would apply to the church the forms of the world. Yet the fact that the church does not possess a worldly political structure does not mean that it possesses no political structure whatever. The “politics” of the kingdom are the pattern, purpose, and dynamic by which God orders the life of the heavenly polis in this world. Only as it conforms to this heavenly pattern is the church a city set on a hill, given as salt to preserve the world from corruption and a light to point the way to salvation.
Look also at the way that Clowney deals with so-called mercy ministries in the church (or how the spiritual aspects of Christian existence transcend the temporal):
As a heavenly community the church must deal with the temporal concerns of its members, yet its discipline remains spiritual, not temporal. For example, the church could require a Christian storekeeper to refund purchases that had been gained by misleading advertising, but if the member refused, the church’s final earthly sanction would be excommunication, not economic boycott.
The heavenly community of Christ is called to an earthly pilgrimage. The people of God may not abandon the program of his kingdom—”if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him” (Rom 8:18). Paul rebukes the triumphalists at Corinth: “ye have come to reign without us: yea, and I would
that ye did reign, that we might also reign with you” (I Cor. 4:8). We may not wish to condemn Christians who in persecution that seemed beyond endurance turned upon their persecutors, but Christ does not call his church to Camisard rebellion. Rather, he gives that grace that enabled the Huguenot galley-slave to call his chains the chains of Christ’s love.
Finally, look at the way that church and state authority are distinct because of the differences between Christ’s rule as creator and redeemer:
The distinction between the state as the form of the city of this world and the church as the form of the heavenly city remains essential. Christ’s heavenly authority controls the nations but they are not thereby made his disciples. His headship over all things is distinguished from his headship over the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that fills all in all (Eph. 1:21-23). To be sure, the life of the worldly kingdoms is influenced by the life of the church in their midst; the people of God are like salt to preserve the world from its corruption; the kingdom works as a leaven, penetrating the world with the influence of Christian faith, hope, and love. . . .
To suppose that the body of Christ finds institutional expression in both the church and the state as religious and political spheres is to substitute a sociological conception of the church for the teaching of the New Testament. Christ does not give the keys of the kingdom to Caesar, nor the sword to Peter before the parousia. The church is the new nation (I Pet. 2:9), the new family of God (Eph. 3:15). The covenantal family of the patriarchal period and the covenantal nation after Moses demonstrate that
the people of God are formed in a way that respects the structures of life in the world, but they also demonstrate that the electing grace of God’s kingdom cannot be fulfilled within these structures.
Maybe Clowney’s problem is that he was not European but American. But the last I checked, Frame was not importing his suits from Switzerland.
212 Comments
Brother Hart,
For the love of God please just do a full review of the book in one go and then it’s all out. Attacking the book because of who published it and your dislike of Frame and his theology is just over the top.
The link for the WTJ article is broken. It should be http://marshillaudio.org/Downloads/Pdf/Clowney_Politics.pdf.
Thanks for the post!
Darryl,
I can’t imagine that the early Reformed theologians didn’t address this subject. I would think they would either be influenced by or want to address the Augsburg Confession of 1530?
Augsburg Confession, Article XVI: Of Civil Affairs
1 Our churches teach that lawful civil regulations are good works of God. 2 They teach that it is right for Christians to hold political office, to serve as judges, to judge matters by imperial laws and other existing laws, to impose just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to take oaths when required by the magistrates, for a man to marry a wife, or a woman to be given in marriage [Romans 13; 1 Corinthians 7:2].
3 Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these political offices to Christians. 4 They also condemn those who do not locate evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but place it in forsaking political offices. 5 For the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart (Romans 10:10). At the same time, it does not require the destruction of the civil state or the family. The Gospel very much requires that they be preserved as God’s ordinances and that love be practiced in such ordinances. 6 Therefore, it is necessary for Christians to be obedient to their rulers and laws. 7 The only exception is when they are commanded to sin. Then they ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)
The different governance of the two kingdoms is implied when we hear of the judging matters by “Imperial laws or other existing laws” and the notion of “just” punishments and wars. This all is grounded in the understanding that God’s way of dealing with the civil realm is through civil righteousness founded upon the law God has written on the hearts of all people.
“Our churches condemn the Anabaptists who do not locate evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but place it in forsaking political offices.”
The Confessional support for cruelty to Anabaptists assumes a false alternative. It assumes that those churches which forbid their members from the attempt to overcome evil with evil identify that requirement with fear and faith in God. It assumes that the “come out” is the entire duty the anabaptist teaches.
Could the anabaptists respond like this? “Our churches condemn the Reformed and the Lutherans who do not locate evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but place it in the execution of Anabaptists.”
My point is not so much to rehearse the errors of Zurich (Conrad Grebel) or of New England (Roger Williams) but to caution us against attributing the confusion of law and gospel to those churches who interpret the law differently than we do. When the Lutherans opposed Charles the Emperor, that is not sedition, but when the Anabaptists do not obey the Lutheran magistrates, that IS sedition? When the Reformers dissent from the pope’s church, that is not “gnostic individualism”, but it is when Anabaptists form their own churches?
Mark, I think you may misunderstand.
1) Here a specific teaching of the Anabaptists is condemned and it is not a license to harm Anabaptists. Our Book of Concord also condemns Roman Catholic and Reformed teachings which Lutherans do not agree with. Our confessions set out not only what we believe, teach, and confess, but also make clear what we do not believe, teach, or confess in some areas. The Anabaptists’ could very well have condemned teachings that they did not agree with in their confessions of faith – if they had had any. If I understand it correctly, they did not adhere to any confessions or creeds.
2) The opposition to Charles V was by German princes over the right to preach the gospel freely in the lands they ruled. They petitioned Charles V to do this and the Augsburg Confession was written to show him what they believed and taught. This was not insurrection by the peasants or citizens, but through the lawful rulers and it was over the gospel not a bid for independence or revolution from Charles V. It was definitely not individualistic.
3) Yes, rebellion against German magistrates would be dealt with as civil disobedience.
4) Lastly, to accuse Lutheranism of gnosticism is to completely misunderstand what Lutherans believe, teach, and confess. We’re the ones accused of emphasizing the humanity of Christ in his incarnation too much.
Lily,
Dr. VanDrunen in “NL and the 2K’s” writes on pages 190-191:
“In other words, Christians are bound to obey ecclesiastical authorities only insofar as they command what Scripture commands, while Christians are bound to obey civil authorities in everything except when their commands contradict a responsibility that Scripture places upon them.
WCF 20 teaches this doctrine, in a way more explicit and taut than Calvin did, as far as I am aware. WCF 20.1 begins by laying out… Christian liberty is of the essence of the believer’s salvation in Christ. Then WCF 20.2 offers… “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, in matters of faith, or worship.” The WCF, therefore, makes a sharp distinction between the liberty enjoyed by Christians in two different areas, “matters of faith and worship” on the one hand and everything else on the other. The former are the province of the church, not the state, and the latter are the concern of the state, not the church, as other statements in the WCF indicate.
VanDrunen writes in footnote 141: WCF 23.3 prohibits the civil magistrate from assuming “the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” WCF 31.3 gives church synods and councils authority over “controversies of faith” and “the better ordering of the public worship of God” while WCF 31.3 forbids synods and council “to intermeddle with civil affairs, which concern the commonwealth.” Also significant here is the emphasis… that ecclesiastical authority is exercised only “ministerially,” that is, merely declaring what Scripture says. … i.e. no sword wielded by the church.
VanDrunen concludes the paragraph with: Thus, in both Calvin and Reformed orthodoxy one sees the significance of the two kingdoms doctrine for so central a theological matter as the Christian liberty bestowed in salvation.
I think, given the historical context of the oppressive nature of the Anglican Church regarding the consciences of ministers, the WCF’s 2K statements are built around the concept of the “liberty of the Christian.” Yet, as VD shows there is a clear 2K understanding in WCF.
Andrew,
How would a single review be preferable? Is what DGH said in this review of the intro wrong?
Lily, I agree that “gnosticism” is an unfair accusation, be it against Lutherans or Anabaptists who teach the real absence of the humanity of the Lord Jesus. I suppose the group of Mennonites who agreed with the ex-Roman Catholic Menno Simons about the “celestial flesh” should be called docetic, but even that is not “gnosticism”.
That was my point, that it would be unfair.
As for the Roman Catholic emperor, I don’t think it made much difference to Charles 5 if those who wanted liberty to preach heresy were individuals or princes. It has often been the case that those who wanted liberty to preach for themselves were not all than keen about others having that liberty. Thus the accusations: we are not individualists but they are. We are not confession-less but they are. And so on.
The relationship of Lutheran magistrates to anabaptist preachers in their dominions was not that different from the relationship of Hitler to preachers in his….no liberty….
I just remembered my original point. We can disagree about what the law means, but that doesn’t mean that either of us is confusing law and gospel. For example, to leave anabaptists out of it, we could disagree about the liberty to have pictures of the Lord Jesus. But even if you disagree with me about disapproving those pictures, you should not say that my not approving the pictures has become my gospel.
Schleitheim Confession 6: We are agreed as follows concerning the sword: The sword is ordained of God outside the perfection of Christ. In the perfection of Christ, however, only the ban is used for a warning and for the excommunication of the one who has sinned, without putting the flesh to death – simply the warning and the command to sin no more.
Now it will be asked by many who do not recognize (this as) the will of Christ for us, whether a Christian may or should employ the sword against the wicked for the defense and protection of the good, or for the sake of love. Our reply is unanimously as follows: Christ teaches and commands us to learn of Him, for He is meek and lowly in heart and so shall we find rest to our souls. Also Christ says to the heathenish woman who was taken in adultery, not that one should stone her according to the Law of His Father (and yet He says, As the Father has commanded me, thus I do), but in mercy and forgiveness and warning, to sin no more. Such (an attitude) we also ought to take completely according to the rule of the ban.
Secondly, it will be asked concerning the sword, whether a Christian shall pass sentence in worldly disputes and strife such as unbelievers have with one another. This is our united answer. Christ did not wish to decide or pass judgment between brother and brother in the case of the inheritance, but refused to do so. Therefore we should do likewise.
Thirdly, it will be asked concerning the sword, Shall one be a magistrate if one should be chosen as such? The answer is as follows: They wished to make Christ king, but He fled and did not view it as the arrangement of His Father. Thus shall we do as He did, and follow Him, and so shall we not walk in darkness. He Himself forbids the (employment of) the force of the sword saying, The worldly princes lord it over them, etc., but not so shall it be with you. Further, Paul says, Whom God did foreknow He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, etc. Also Peter says, Christ has suffered and left us an example, that ye should follow His steps.
Finally it will be observed that it is not appropriate for a Christian to serve as a magistrate because of these points: The government magistracy is according to the flesh, but the Christian’s is according to the Spirit; their citizenship is in this world, but the Christian’s citizenship is in heaven; the weapons of their conflict and war are carnal and against the flesh only, but the Christian’s weapons are spiritual, against the fortification of the devil. The worldlings are armed with steel and iron, but the Christians are armed with the armor of God, with truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation and the Word of God.
Being Reformed being open to revision. Original WCF ch. 23.3
The civil magistrate hath. . . authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
dgh:This is fairly standard language in the Reformed confessions with some invoking Old Testament penal codes and some simply saying the magistrate should enforce both tables of the law.
The American Revision
. . . no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.
dgh: Not to be missed is that the revision not only drops entirely the magistrate’s responsibility for suppressing heresy and blasphemy, but it raises the stakes by forbidding laws that would prefer any denomination and insisting that magistrates protect the good names of all people no matter what their religion or their infidelity. It is an amazing change.
Many thanks, Jack. I appreciate your help. Is there anything prior to the Westminster confessions? Any compatriots of Calvin or those who followed him up until the writing of the WC?
Mark, I’m afraid I’m not in agreement with you in these matters. I do try to avoid debating about distinctives in the different traditions at Old Life so I will say no more other than to suggest that you may want to rethink or rephrase one sentence since I don’t think you mean it the way it comes off:
“Anabaptists who teach the real absence of the humanity of the Lord Jesus.”
In the passages below, Saint John is addressing the heresy of gnosticism.
1 John 4:1-3
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
2 John 1:7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
Dr. Clowney’s remarks sound as if they could come straight out of Dr. vanDrunen’s work on “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms.” I guess this really is an Escondido conspiracy, huh?
Bro Andrew, this is an attack? Do you share quarters with Frame?
Chris, I think I fixed it. Thanks.
Lily, I agree that this is not the time or place. But I did mean what I wrote. I agree with Zwingli about what the ascension of Christ means.
I should also say that “anabaptists” are not what they used to be. And that the Lutherans and Reformed who wanted toleration for themselves but not for anabaptists are not now who they used to be. This perhaps has both its pluses and minuses.
Disagreement does not necessarily mean that we don’t understand each other. I hope you know, Lily, that I certainly do believe that Christ Jesus has came in the flesh. Christ has obtained in history a righteousness (there and then) for the elect which God will impute to every person for whom Christ died.
I don’t think it would be good or even possible to deport all the Mormons and papists. But what about every politician who engages in a public display of religion while running for office?
I guess that would be all of them.
Sounds good.
Mark,
Not only is your theology complex and confusing but I bet your wife finds you a bit complex and confusing too; I hope you can laugh at that. BTW, your last post was quite funny. I never knew there was such a thing as a public display of religion.
Mark, I appreciate the clarification that you are speaking in regards to Christ’s ascension. If you do not mind my asking, I’d like to understand if I’m understanding a few of your Anabaptist, Baptist, Reformed distinctives correctly and if this is what you hold to? I’d appreciate your help – it’s confusing trying to understand where you are coming from.
1. You believe that the Lord’s Supper is empty which means there is no real or spiritual presence received?
2. You observe the Lord’s Supper because it is commanded and receive a psychological benefit from it by remembering Christ?
3. You believe the Schleitheim Confession’s 7 articles of refutation are sufficient for a confession of Anabaptist faith?
4. Like the Anabaptists, you do not hold to the Chalcedon Creeds on the Trinity, Christ’s Two Nature’s, and so forth?
5. You are not really Anabaptist, but Baptist and hold to parts of the Westminster Confession?
6. Which parts of the Westminster Confession do you reject, besides the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper?
7. Anything else you would volunteer would be appreciated.
Thanks, Darryl, for the (MHA) link to the WTJ piece by President Clowney.
I hope everyone takes the time to read Clowney’s article carefully. It contains, in typical Clowney fashion, some good biblical theology.
And it is not saying precisely the same thing that David Van Drunen is, as Richard, above, alleges. Of course, there would be many points of agreement with David, as all the Reformed would have. But there are subtle differences.
EPC, while distinguishing church, state, and family, sees the ultimate distinction to be, as he puts it, the church “contrasted, not with the family or with the state, but with the world as the corporate structure of unbelief.” This is the classic Augustinian distinction of the two cities, the city of God, built on the love of God to the contempt of self, and the city of this world, built on the love of self to the contempt of God. This is the kingdom of light and darkness.
The two kingdoms of which you, Darryl, David, and others speak today, as a part of the NL2K project, is certainly related to the two cities of Augustine but is not precisely the same thing. Christians, rightly and joyfully, participate in the two kingdoms as NL2k defines them. It would be Anabaptist to disdain participation in the state (which no Reformed do), but it is Christian to disdain participation in the city of this world, which is not the state as such (though as Clowney admits more related to that than to the church) but which is the “corporate structure of unbelief” manifested wherever unbelief is found, in church, state, or family.
There is much nuance in Clowney’s piece, because, after all, as Hodge said, this whole church/state business is one of the most complex things. BTW, I am making no comment here at all on Frame’s work as I have not seen it and do not generally find him nuanced with respect to these things.
And not only do I have no interest in the personalization of this affair (and the unfortunate denominating of this as “Escondido theology”; what do Robert Godfrey and Dennis Johnson think about that?), but I think we need a real dialogue, with less vitriol and grandstanding.
I take issue with some things in Clowney’s piece but there’s much good here. One thing: I agree with Clowney’s teacher Paul Woolley (yes, one can disagree with one’s teacher) that the state is not a strictly post-fall institution. I think that his discussion of this, and a few other things, is better than some of Clowney here. I am, for your readers, referring to Woolley’s work on Family, Church, and State: God’s Institutions. I think that work has some nuance that NL2K is missing. And I would also urge readers to look at what Clowney says in his piece about the Christian family.
Yes, there’s much that we agree on as Reformed folk. It’s those sometimes small areas of disagreement that bedevil us, particularly depending on how we treat them.
Lily, I thought you weren’t going to talk about things that divide us. I don’t want to make this about me. I have explained before— though I am “anabaptist” in my ecclesiology, I believe the five soteriological points of “Calvinism” as my gospel.
Some might say that the gospel is more than the five points, and I would agree ( I do affirm the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds, as would most anabaptists and papists), but the gospel is not less than the five points. I have discovered that when “worldview Calvinists” say it’s more than the five points, they themselves don’t believe the five points (shelf doctrine, as Richard Mouw says). But I do agree that being Reformed is more than the five points, which is why I don’t call myself Reformed. I will leave it to the Reformed to decide if people who disagree with Calvin’s view of the presence are Reformed. (Is Hodge Reformed?)
So I don’t want to have a discussion now about the Lord’s Supper, except to caution you that disagreeing with the Lutheran teaching of the “communication of attributes” does not mean that non-Lutherans don’t believe in the two natures of Christ.
To end on a positive note, I could quote you the vast majority of the Westminster Confession with which I do agree. But let me highlight chapter 8:8—”To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he does certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.”
Now, when a man has learned through the commandments to recognize his helplessness and is distressed about how he might satisfy the law–being truly humbled and reduced to nothing in his own eyes–he finds in himself nothing whereby he may be justified and saved.
Here the second part of Scripture comes to our aid, namely the promises of God which declare the glory of God, saying, “If you wish to fulfill the law, come believe in Christ in whom grace, righteousness, peace, liberty, and all things are promised. If you believe, you shall have all things; if you do not believe, you shall lack all things.”
Martin Luther, On Christian Liberty
Mark, I did not ask you those questions in order to debate your beliefs, but to understand where you were coming from. It can be confusing because you are not part of a tradition whose doctrines hang together as a whole cloth, but is a personal faith that is it’s own authority. It is untethered from a church that is united in what it believes via their formal and personal adherence to specific confessions and creeds. It does not submit to a church tradition and it’s dogma on orthodoxy and orthopraxy. You often are hard to follow because your theology is determined by your own personal conglomeration of doctrines and thus it often seems disjointed and confusing as to what you really believe. I think this quote speaks well on the rights and limitations of conscience in matters of religion and why in trying to understand your points, there is a need to ask more and ask exactly what you mean, whereas with the Reformed, I can pretty much count on where they are coming from and what they believe.
‘We concede to every man the absolute right of private judgment as to the faith of the Lutheran Church, but if he has abandoned the faith of that Church, he may not use her name as his shelter in attacking the thing she cherishes, and in maintaining which she obtained her being and her name. It is not enough that you say to me that such a thing is clear to your private judgment. You must show to my private judgment that God’s Word teaches it, before I dare recognise you as in the unity of the faith. ..In other words your private judgment is not to be my interpreter, nor is mine to be yours. ..You have the civil right and the moral right to form your impressions in regard to truth, but there the right stops. You have not the right to enter or remain in any Christian communion except as its terms of membership give you that right.’ Charles Porterfield Krauth (1823-1882)
Darryl,
I suggest that Rev. Alan Strange has made an important point with regard to the Church as properly contrasted with the world as “corporate structure of unbelief” rather than the family or the state. I agree with him that this is the distinction which Augustine makes and which Clowney, and Ken Myers in publishing his essay, are also making.
Ken Myers, in his new preface to his book “All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes” makes this exact point in the following quote:
“The Church anticipates the form of the human race as it will be when it comes to maturity; she is the ‘already’ of the new humanity that will be perfected in the ‘not yet’ of the last day.” So conversion necessarily led to discipleship that had extensive consequences. “Conversion thus means turning from one way of life, one culture, to another. Conversion is the beginning of a ‘resocialization,’ . . . and ‘inculturation’ into the way of life practiced by the eschatological community.”
Alan, I am not entirely sure what you are saying. You seem to suggest that 2k proponents identify the church with the city of God and the state with the city of man. I don’t know of anyone who has done this. What is the case, however, is that 2k theology identifies the kingdom of Christ with the church (as does WCF 25), thus not attributing redemptive categories to cultural activities (another affirmation in Clowney’s piece, especially his notion that Christ fulfilled the cultural mandate).
So the 2 cities do not like up with the 2 kingdoms. But the 2 cities do teach a basic lesson about the difference between temporal and secular affairs on the one side, and spiritual and eternal affairs on the other. And when it comes to the two kingdoms, the state is temporal and secular and the church is spiritual and eternal.
In other words, dualism reigns and most of the critics of 2k resist dualism in all forms (after Kuyper allegedly).
But Don, if the world is identified with the corporate structure of unbelief, and culture is an expression of belief or unbelief, how are you ever going to redeem the culture or embody a new humanity apart from the church? In other words, how can you ever say something good about non-Christian art since it embodies “the corporate structure of unbelief”?
And just to keep you aware of your theonomic impulses, where does your redeemed culture make room for unbelievers? Is tolerance of blasphemy or infidelity (free speech and freedom of conscience) really one of the consequences of a redeemed humanity or a prefiguration of the eschatological community?
Or could it be that the culture and society of this age looks for an arrangement different from the eschaton even as the church foreshadows the world to come.
If you blur the lines between culture and church you are going to wind up with a liberal church and a civil religion in the culture. Welcome to 1950s USA.
Sorry, Darryl, for my lack of clarity. No, I don’t think that any Reformed are identifying the state with the city of this world and the church with the city of God, simpliciter (though Clowney does make an analogy, with which I don’t disagree, in his article).
Rather, I am pointing out that Clowney’s ultimate distinction here is the two city distinction, between those who love God and those who love self. This cannot simply be put into the service of NL2K, however, which is what I understood you in this post to be doing. Clowney does distinguish family, church, and state (as do all Reformed and many others), but his ultimate distinction is not between civil and ecclesiastical kingdoms (as NL2K makes and in which all believers properly participate) but between the kingdom of God (manifested in the church) and the world (as the “corporate structure of unbelief”). His arguments go to the support of an Augustinian schema but not necessarily an NL2K one, NL2K having a related but different specific point than the “two-city” view of Augustine.
Clowney’s two kingdoms, iow, are not civil and ecclesiastical but church and world (taking the latter in a bad ethical sense). My point was to say that Clowney’s article, while tracking with NL2K in places (as do many of us) is not getting at precisely the same thing as NL2K. And I also wanted to point out that I think Woolley, in his work on these institutions (of family, church, and state) has it better at places than Clowney.
From Clowney’s article:
The distinction between the state as the form of the city of the world and the church as the form of the heavenly city remains essential.
How is the “corporate structure of unbelief” of the world expressed except through the organizing structures of the the world, the main one being the state? It seems to me that Clowney sees the state as the main organizing entity which conveys or represents the kingdom of the world, in the same way the church is Christ’s institution on earth that conveys, represents the kingdom of God. I think this is consistent with VanDrunen. People can, and do, debate how the 2K reality is to be practically dealt with as various issues present themselves, but doesn’t Augustine and Clowney both echo the reality of two kingdoms that have separate spheres of authority and purpose?
Darryl,
I agree with Augustine in the following quote:
This might sound very much like the 2k theory that many subscribe to, but I suggest it is radically different in that the contrast between the 2 cities is a contrast of the object of the “love” of its citizens, not their created order. The 2 are able to live in some degree of harmony, because the desire for peace is a common goal. However, the Bible and history clearly show that the created order is more strongly influenced by one city or the other, such that it is not the arrangement or order of creation that needs to be modified in the eschaton, but the elimination of misordered love.
Darryl, I’m glad to see engagement with Frame’s critique beyond “publications through independent publishers needn’t be taken seriously because they aren’t peer reviewed.”
FWIW, given a commitment to Enlightenment principles I agree that blurring “the lines between culture and church” will get “a liberal church and a civil religion in the culture.” But I’d also argue that such a commitment will get you a liberal church and a liberal culture anyway.
The problem I’ve always had with the Escondido Theology is the false conclusion it derives from the temporal nature of the state: that the state ought not to acknowledge the true God or Christ as head of Creation.
When a church does not call *all* men *everywhere* to the obedience of Christ it has already sold out to the culture.
And finally, do we really want to agree with Clowney that “the electing grace of God’s kingdom cannot be fulfilled” within / through the covenant family and covenant nation when this is exactly how the Redeemer came into the world (born of a woman, under the law) and accomplished our redemption (exalted on the cross as King of the Jews)?
Alan, it seems to me that Clowney is affirming an ultimate (world and invisible church) and a proximate (church and state, as Jack Miller’s quotation indicates). But I don’t need to go to clowney for a distinction between the temporary and spiritual spheres — I can go to Machen, Robinson, Hodge, Witherspoon, Calvin, Luther, and Augustine (not to mention Gelasius or Gregory VII). The spiritual nature of the church’s ministry, contrasted with the temporal nature of the state’s responsibilities, is part of the warp and woof of the West. Only anti-dualists think otherwise (or that somehow the French Revolution discombobulated the entire heritage of church-state differentiation).
Don, I’m not sure history is as clear as you suggest since Augustine was writing City of God to argue that Christians were not responsible for the fall of Rome. In which case, Christians suffer. Rome falls when Christians find freedom to worship (or even are the state religion). So your conclusion about the influence of Xianity on culture is not exactly evident in Augustine’s circumstances.
Andrew, why, yes, we should agree with Clowney since Christ’s ministry sort of put an end to the monarchy, the temple, and even families — in the sense that any follower of Christ must be willing to leave his family behind.
No 2ker ever said that a state ought not to affirm Christ as head. England, I believe, does so even to this day. I know of no 2ker calling for a war on England. What 2kers say is that affirming Christ as head is not necessary for a government to be legitimate. And what 2kers also ask is why those who want a state to acknowledge Christ don’t ever seem to acknowledge the problems that such an affirmation creates for Jews, Mormons, and Muslims.
So, Darryl, if Jesus put an end to the monarchy how can he be king? And if the covenantal family is abolished, why do you practice infant baptism?
Let me be the first theocrat *on your record* to acknowledge that Jews, Mormons, and Muslims pose a problem to the Christian state. But, these groups pose no less of a problem to the secular state, because the true religon always exercises control over how natural law cashes out in the real world (e.g., what holy days the state will respect, which marriages are licit, etc.).
Darryl:
I agree, of course, with what you say here and the sort of distinction that is rather widely made.
If that’s all that NL2K was about it would be rather unremarkable. But I think that it’s about a bit more. It seems to be about an absolute dualism that has no integration point, a problem in any system. We must account for both unity and diversity, not simply diversity. I would say that the cosmic Christ who rules over all (and the church in a particular way) is the integration point.
You may not think that Frame is getting it right, and that he’s all oneness without the proper distinction(s). But the solution is not diversity without unity, because God (who is three persons) is also one in His Trinitarian nature and Jesus Christ is one in the integrity of his theanthropic person in the Incarnation. A dualism that remains a true dualism will never do, any more than Tri-Theism or Nestorianism will.
This one and many business is difficult stuff, I admit, but the Bible never solves it with an either/or but with a both/and that transcends our reasoning. That Christ is the head and king of the church does mean that He is not the king over all creation. And that the Scriptures teach us the way of justification does not mean that they do not teach us how to live as well (because sanctification is part of our redemption; not part of our justification or adoption, but part of our salvation).
There’s so much good here that you brothers have brought forth. I am eager that folk learn about the proper spirituality of the church and that they understand the province of the church and of the state. I don’t want the two confused anymore than I want justification and sanctification confused. But the whole of life is addressed by the Word (at least principially) and the Christian, whatever explicit use he makes of that in all the spheres of life, is to be guided by it in all he does.
I’ll stop here as I have become more and more aware of our propensity not to listen to each other and to talk past each other.
Lily to mark mc: “You often are hard to follow because your theology is determined by your own personal conglomeration of doctrines and thus it often seems disjointed and confusing as to what you really believe….there is a need to ask more and ask exactly what you mean, whereas with the Reformed, I can pretty much count on where they are coming from and what they believe.”
mark mc: Have you never ever met another “Calvinistic baptist”? Besides being a pacifist, my combination of being baptist and a “five pointer” is just not that unusual. Do you assume that all baptists are lonely individuals without congregations or confessions?
As for the “Reformed” being pretty much all on the same page, I would think these pages would teach you not to assume that. Hodge and Nevin did not agree on what the presence of Christ meant in the Supper. And what DG Hart means by the “spiritual presence” of Christ in the Supper is probably not what your Lutheran pastor means by Christ’s presence or even what Peter Leithart thinks it means.
Just because “limited atonement” is in the Westminster Confession of Faith (8:8) does not mean that all “Reformed” folks believe that doctrine or mean the same thing by it. In this present thread, I have affirmed that I do believe the doctrine of an effective atonement, in which all for whom Christ died are saved by Christ.
Your difficulty in understanding me does of course concern me, especially it’s the case that I am the first “Calvinistic baptist” you have encountered. I certainly don’t speak for them all. But I stand in the tradition where Abraham Booth likes what John Owen says about the gospel, and where Robert Haldane in his commentary on Romans teaches clearly the doctrine of a definite atonement.
Of course, Lily, it could be that you yourself don’t personally think about the doctrines your churches teaches but simply accept them all because they teach them all. But I don’t think so.
I think this started with a bit from the Augsburg which seemed (to me) to assume that folks who disagree about ethics and ecclesiology must have a different gospel or no gospel.
Darryl, on the Escondido theological model the confessional state is illegitimate because theocracy was solely for the oooooold testament. And, because Escondido 2K does not articulate a theory of legitimacy, practically, its exponents will always labor to undermine laws (especially constitutions) derived from Scripture in favor of laws derived from every and any alternative principle.
In other words, the Escondido 2ker is a radical church-state separationist who wishes to renounce the Judeo-Christian foundations of European-American law and replace them with a new foundation based on unaided human reason guided by natural law alone.
Darryl, am I wrong in believing that if you lived in the UK you’d be most sympathetic to those who work to disestablish the Church of England, abolish the monarchy, and completely secularize foundations of law?
Alan, I know you’re gone, but with regard to your suggestion of an “absolute dualism with no integration point” amongst Escondidoittes. Does it help to suggest that the thorough-going dualism is tempered with an equally healthy triadalism? From Horton’s “God of promise”:
After briefly sketching out the narrative of Cain in his “stay of execution that allows Cain to build a city,” Horton explains that:
…we begin the story with one creation, one covenant, one people, one mandate, one city. Then after the fall, there is a covenant of creation (with its cultural mandate still in effect for all people, with the law of that covenant universally inscribed on the conscience) and a covenant of grace (with its gospel publicly announced to transgressors), a City of Man (secular but even in its rejection of God, upheld by God’s gracious hand for the time being) and a City of God (holy but even in its acceptance by God, sharing in the common curse of a fallen world). Just as the failure to distinguish law covenant from promise covenant leads to manifold confusions in our understanding of salvation, tremendous problems arise when we fail to distinguish adequately between God’s general care for the secular order and his special concern for the redemption of his people.
Religious fundamentalism tends to see the world simply divided up into believers and unbelievers. The former are blessed, loved by God, holy, and doers of the right, while the latter are cursed, hated by God, unholy, and doers of evil. Sometimes this is taken to quite an extreme: believers are good people, and their moral, political, and doctrinal causes are always right, always justified, and can never be questioned. Unless the culture is controlled by their agenda, it is simply godless and unworthy of the believers’ support. This perspective ignores the fact that according to Scripture, all of us—believers and unbelievers alike—are simultaneously under a common curse and common grace.
Religious liberalism tends to see the world simply as one blessed community. Ignoring biblical distinctions between those inside and those outside of the covenant community, this approach cannot take the common curse seriously because it cannot take sin seriously…everything is holy.
…[But] the human race is not divided at the present time between those who are blessed and those who are cursed. That time is coming, of course, but in this present age, believers and unbelievers alike share in the pains of childbirth, the burdens of labor, the temporal effects of their own sins, and the eventual surrender of their decaying bodies to death…there is in this present age a category for that which is neither holy nor unholy but simply common.
In a word, if one listens closely enough, the 2k represented by Escondido makes a pretty big deal about the common life believers and non-believers share, even in the midst of their radical spiritual differences.
Andrew, kudos for owning up to the clear problems implicated by a theocratic/theonomic state. But when you say things like “…the Escondido 2ker is a radical church-state separationist who wishes to renounce the Judeo-Christian foundations of European-American law and replace them with a new foundation based on unaided human reason guided by natural law alone” something tells me you are confusing Christian secularism with legal secularism. I don’t have the time at the moment, but I’m sure you have “A Secular Faith” on hand. You might review pages 14-17 to get a better handle on the differences.
Zrim,
Besides the holy Trinity, what would you or Horton put in the category of holy?
Mark, it seems that it shouldn’t be difficult to understand why someone would be hard-pressed to understand where you are coming from.
The things you previously said you believed were: anabaptist ecclesiology, the five soteriological points of “Calvinism” as your gospel and possibly more points than 5 points but not less than 5 points, Zwingli’s ascension of Christ means a real absence of Christ’s humanity, empty sacraments, credo-baptism, a Schleitheim Confession form of pacifism, you affirm the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds, have a non-Lutheran view of the two-nature’s of Christ, and that you do not call yourself Reformed.
Now you’ve added that you believe in limited atonement, asked if had heard of Baptist confessions, and say you are a Calvinist Baptist. I would ask which Baptist confession or confessions? Do you adhere to all or part of the confession(s)? The Calvinist part of the name seems very odd since some of the beliefs listed above are the antithesis of what Calvin believed… so the name does not make sense. When I googled to see if I could find more, the words Reformed and Calvinistic were used interchangeable and the mainstream agreed usage appears to be Reformed Baptist. As for churches, I am not surprised that there are churches for any kind of theology or mixtures of theologies or non-theologies. It would be strange to not be aware of the smorgasbord available in America. One of the main American religions appears to be an individualistic Cafeteria Christianity with each man his own authority.
As for the Reformed, I am aware of the disparities within their ranks and learning more. The orthodox reformed churchmen have struggles similar to the ones that I see with orthodox Lutheran churchmen. So, no, I not blind to what is going on. There is always a high respect for the churchmen who work for orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and seek to remain faithful to their confessions and the creeds, and who are willing to take on the thankless work of preserving the faith so it can be passed on to the next generation.
Re: I think this started with a bit from the Augsburg which seemed (to me) to assume that folks who disagree about ethics and ecclesiology must have a different gospel or no gospel.
You took umbrage to an Anabaptist teaching being condemned in the Augsburg confession. Whether Anabaptist ethics and ecclesiology mute, hinder, twist, or negate the gospel, or create a different gospel was never on the plate. Best I can tell, you misunderstood what was condemned.
Steve Z, There appears to be no principled distinction between the two. Both “Christian” and “legal” secularists alienate law with respect to religion. Despite talk of natural law, Christian secularists of the Escondido school separate human justice from divine justice in which it must participate, assuring the triumph of bestial tyranny.
Neither secularism (Christian or legal) can provide a true non-religious account of the origin of the state, nor can they provide a basis for political loyalty without appeal to religion. The dream of secular government and law is a castle built on air.
Alan, I agree that 2k is unremarkable and that God and his sovereign rule is the integration point. Where we differ is whether the Bible is also the integration point. It strikes me that Reformed Protestants have always conceded that the Bible did not reveal everything. No Christian liberty without it. So if God is the integration point, why does the Bible have to be the standard for all of life (if it wasn’t given to reveal all of life)?
Lily:The things you previously said you believed were: anabaptist ecclesiology, the five soteriological points of “Calvinism” as your gospel and possibly more points than 5 points but not less than 5 points, Zwingli’s ascension of Christ means a real absence of Christ’s humanity, empty sacraments, credo-baptism, a Schleitheim Confession form of pacifism, you affirm the Nicene and Chalcedon creeds, have a non-Lutheran view of the two-nature’s of Christ, and that you do not call yourself Reformed. Now you’ve added that you believe in limited atonement, asked if had heard of Baptist confessions, and say you are a Calvinist Baptist. I would ask which Baptist confession or confessions?
mark: The “empty sacraments” is something you are putting in my mouth, because I don’t believe in “sacraments” at all. In my view and that of many others (even some presbyterians who are either not informed of Calvin’s view or who disagree with it), the “take eat” of the Lord’s Supper and “be baptised” are Christ’s positive laws for Christians and not God’s acts toward us. We object not only to the word “sacrament” (which could be construed as “pledge” but usually isn’t) but also to the idea of divine agency. I am not asking you to agree, but to understand. Perhaps you should google the first London Baptist Confession (which I prefer) or the Second London (1689).
I deny any doctrine of ubiquity which claims that the risen Christ is everywhere present in His human nature, but that denial is not unique to baptists. Some of us focus more on history (the first coming in the flesh, the ascension) rather than a metaphysical swap-shop where characteristics of the divine are packaged up and transferred to the “other nature”. When Luther says that the bread of the Supper just has to be the glorified body of the Exalted One, we just say no. Heaven is still heaven and earth is still earth.
In point of fact, Lily, I believe the “extra” is not the “extra Calvinisticum” but something which should be (and has been) affirmed by all Christians.
Calvin:Institutes 2:13:4—For even if the Word in his immeasurable essence united with the nature of man into one person, we do not believe that he was confined therein. The Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, he willed to be borne in the virgin’s womb, to go about the earth, to hang on the cross; yet he continuously filled the world as he had done from the beginning.”
What you call “Limited Atonement” is one of the five points of Calvinism, Lily. Have you been so long with the Reformed and not know that? I didn’t add something extra. I said I was a five pointer. If you didn’t know that I believed that Christ’s Atonement is Not Limited in Efficacy since it was never intended for the non-elect who will not perish, then you have not read many of my posts, since I try to get that neglected doctrine into just about everything I say. It’s good news. All for whom Christ died will be saved from the second death. All of them will come to believe the gospel!
I am not offended that you disagree with anabaptists about bearing political office. I was simply pointing out that disagreement about the law does not mean disagreement about the gospel. We may very well disagree about the gospel, but it will not be because we disagree about holding political offices. Nor will it because Lutherans asked for tolerance for themselves but not for the anabaptists.
Andrew, you are dealing in two-dimensions, but that’s the way with theory driven analyses. If 2k then no theory of whatever.
What pray tell is the Judeo-Christian foundation of European-American law? Were the Greeks and Romans chopped liver?
Also, I seem to recall that you had some Covenanter background. A Covenanter defending the Church of England?!!?? Now, that’s some real cult-culture confusion.
Andrew, so if you don’t alienate law from religion, how do you tolerate blasphemers or infidels in your republic or monarchy? Maybe you don’t mind excluding Jews. But I know my life has been enriched by them (not just David and Abraham or Jesus).
Don, I’ll take the bait — the bread and wine of the Supper are holy, the words of Scripture and preaching are holy, the water of baptism is holy, the people of God are holy.
Andrew, Christian secularism simply isn’t as concerned for providing an account of the origin of the state (though it can and does, unlike legal secularism), as it is for wanting to ensure that the only institution ordained to propagate true religion does–the church, and that by Word and sacrament. And that’s because 2k denies that the kingdom of heaven comes as much at the point of a sword as it does by the power of the Spirit. It’s completely spiritual and non-political. I think this is where you guys cry, “Gnostic!”
Don, what Darryl said. I’d only add the Sabbath–that day and the activities the people of God do in it are all holy. Is that not enough?
Mark, I think you may misunderstand what I’m attempting to say. Whether I agree with your beliefs or not is not the point. The point is that it appears that what you believe comes from a variety of different traditions and it appears that you have confirmed this when I ask about it. Even with the Baptist confessions, you did not claim one that you would adhere to, but one you preferred over the other. I have yet to hear you quote from a Baptist confession to support what you believe. The quotes seem to come from Reformed or Lutheran sources.
The point is that it is hard to understand what someone really believes or what they mean when they do not have a consistent theology tethered to one tradition’s confession. The personal conglomeration of disparate theologies you hold are often in conflict with the man’s name you do claim – Calvin. Again, whether I agree with you or not is not the point. The point is that you are hard to understand because of these things and there are no recognizable distinctives in a personal theology. And apologies, I can’t keep track of people’s personal theologies. I’m challenged enough trying to understand other traditions.